(2d Dist. 1992); see infra pp. 42-46. Moreover, Dr. Berg was not even qualified to testify

as an expert on child psychology, so his testimony on young people’s ability to recognize

the hazards of trains was inadmissible for this independent reason. See infra pp. 47-48.

Finally, assuming (contrary to fact) that Dr. Berg’s or Dr. Lencki’s testimony were

otherwise admissible and “pertinent to whether a moving train is a dangerous condition

that may reasonably be expected” to be appreciated by children generally, their testimony

is irrelevant to whether Choate subjectively appreciated the danger, since neither testified

that Choate himself was “a child who does not understand the danger of moving trains.”

Nixon, 2007 WL 4190705, at *8.6

6 For similar reasons, Choate’s reliance below on IHB Special Agent James Griffith’s musings that “[s]ome kids” might not realize the risks of hopping a ride on a moving train was misplaced. Tr. 1452 (emphasis added). Griffith did not testify that children of Choate’s age—much less Choate himself—would not understand that danger. Griffith merely thought that a “younger child[],” as distinguished from an “older child, [such as] a